Student sues over right to start "Anarchy Club"

You misunderstand modern Anarchy. I don't agree with it but I do know a bit about it. Most modern Anarchists believe in...well, picture the small democratic towns and cities of old but with socialism involved. You don't really own anything. It's all shared. There is no government, and the laws are held in place by a social contract. Basically treat other people how you want to be treated.

That's modern anarchy in a paragraph. It's not just 'AAAGH REBELLION! KILL YOUR PARENTS AND SPIKE YOUR HAIR AND TATTOO AN ********************* ON YOUR FACE!".

 

Does anybody over 25 believe this stuff? Of course I wouldn't mind ruling my little town. The sheep will follow their shepard.

 

Oh, sure they do. Not everyone who comes to such stupid conclusions comes to them through following the timid herd. One of their most famous followers was a little old lady. I can't think of her name atm, though it's not really important.

 

All very nice in theory but it goes against human nature, mainly greed and envy. If everything is shared then people will always want to have the nice things. And if they have the nice things then they won't want to share them. The "laws by social contract" is fine until someone breaks the laws, then what? You need someone to enforce the laws. Maybe it would be an idyllic world if it worked, but sadly this is the real world, not an idyllic one.

 

Which is why I don't agree with it. But if you say that to an Anarchist they'll go, "Oh, well see, all property is identical and the same. ************ YOU YUPPIE TRASH IN YOUR CLONED HOUSES! BE ORIGINAL."

=D

 

Re: Re: Student sues over right to start "Anarchy Club"

So how come most religions WORK? I mean you can argue about religion working all you wants but for 90% of the people who follow it, they are OK people. And religion goes against greed and envy.

It may not be for EVERYONE, but then again NO Government is and NO religion is.

 

anarchy has as much credence in my eyes as liberiterianism (none, in case there is any confusion). however, as someone already pointed out, today's anarchism has very little in common with the original mold. most importantly, for the sake of this argument, it no longer propagates the use of violence and terrorism. a school has as much right to ban an anarchy club as it would have banning young republicans, or democrats, grean peace, liberitarians, etc.

 

Come to think of it, I think my High School did ban all political groups.

 

she so caught up in her little idealistic world i don't think she really gets it. the whole point is her single concept at the school attacks the beliefs of the majority at that school when that happens at a school administrators are allowed to put an end to it. when i was in high school we always knew there was no free speech when you walked through the door. that's just part of the game.

everyone wants to have a cause

someone should sit her down and teach her that it's much smarter to just play the game. it's great to be all "against the flow" now but you've still got a good 40 years of your life ahead of you which needs to be your concern.

 

Just noticed this fine bit in the article....

Another teacher said some students complained it was unfair to permit Katie's shirts while denying them the right to don their support for the Ku Klux Klan.

So the Klan are campaigning for equal rights now?

 

"When I saw the dead and dying children in Afghanistan, I felt a newly recovered sense of national security."

You gotta hand it to the girl... very sharp.

 

Then howcome every time the anarchists get together (Like in Seatle or Genoa), they end up trashing a McDonalds or Starbucks.

Granted, I hate paying $7 for a grande chocolate frappacino con latte e . . . Oh hell, just me a double espresso!

Where was I ? Right

I agree, the tought of anarchists getting organized. That is funny!

 

It's not like she wrote that. But yes, I like that shirt. I almost bought it myself once.

 

Honestly, I don't know. I already said twice I'm not an anarchist. But what I do know is they didn't hurt people. They would even go into the stores and shuttle the people out. They believe destroying property is a valid form of protest but not hurting people.

And it's not funny if you know anything about anarchism.

 

So it's ok to attack property? What if I decide I don't like the anarchist's bicycle? Can I just attack that? I'll even let him get off it first.

And having lived in both NY and Washington during major anarchist events, I have seen them TRY to attack people (luckily, the police in Washington and NY had a simple rule, you protest, that's fine, you attack, you get arrested, immediately).

In NY, I saw one of the anarchists attack an old lady in a fur coat. (Fur is dead I guess) He threw something at her and attacked. Then he started yelling how he was getting oppressed as the police threw him to the group and arrested him.

Sorry, I am all for devolving government power, and in some ways, on a philosophical level, have some beliefs in concert with the anarchist beliefs you describe (other than the socialism of course). But when they get together, it seems to me like a nillist excuse to destroy property.

 

Re: Re: Student sues over right to start "Anarchy Club"

No way! It's only ok to attack your property. His bike is probably a Trek, for which his parents paid good money. And if you rip his J. Crew sweater as you're grabbing that bike, you're liable to wind up in civil court faster than you can sing, "Your future dream is a shopping scheme!"

 

And I believe that all drugs should be legal. Does that the cops should let me go home if they find 5 kilos of Grade-A crack in my trunk?

How many times do some people have to be told that just because you believe something or really want it to happen, it doesn't make it true.

 

Hey, everyone: NEWS FLASH. I"m not an anarchist. For the fourth time. I don't know why they think those things, and if you want to know go ask one of them.

 

I haven't argued politics with an anarchist in many years, but the last time I did they were indistinguishable from communists. They just didn't want to be called commies.

I think that ostracism from her peers is perfectly fine for this young twerp, they have free speech rights too. And she needs to be told by someone that she is being an idiot. By the time she gets to college, her professors will praise her for such empty-mindedness.

 

I know a guy who used to call himself an anarchist, saying how possesions were wrong etc. Then one day a friend of his showed him how he could make money selling investment schemes (his friend had made a fair bit of cash) and suddenly he's really into it going "I want to get a Porsche out of this".

He was useless by the way and didn't make a penny.

 

MAYHEM!!!!